Forum:Wikia Legends - Proposal
This is a proposal to re-egnite our Featured Clan system. The concept is if a clan meets the following requirements, then it can go multiple times 1st go: *Article is 2 Months old or older *1000+ words *Nominated 2nd go: *1 Year has passed *Nominated *5000+ words on the page & 5+ pics 3rd & Up: *Year has passed *Nomination *20,000+ words on the page & 20+ Pics Sub-pages do count toward the word count as this stands atm. Thanks, 08:11, August 3, 2011 (UTC) Discussion Why not make the requirements for the first time while we're at it? (making it official). I also think 50+ edits is a bit too small for a nicely written clan page/article. 08:13, August 3, 2011 (UTC) *Some clans might do HUGE edits bringing thier edit count down. 08:18, August 3, 2011 (UTC) *Base it on word count then? **Dear god, alright but your counting lol. (Or LibreOffice?) 08:38, August 3, 2011 (UTC) * I am disappointed with RuneScape Clans Wiki today. Clan:The Prodigy was denied to be Featured Clan (we were January 2011) for the SOLE REASON that we were already featured once before. Zerouh's Triumvirate (which also enjoys being the only clan/union to have a regular newspost) has been featured for two times in a row. (May and June). I do not mean to be angry but I don't see why another clan/union should have different rules than another. Azorrez 10:36, August 3, 2011 (UTC) ** The Zerouhs Triumvirate page was put on the main page during the last week of May, thus it was allowed to stay there throughout the month of July. We do not nominate clans twice for the Featured Clans section of the main page. However, with the passage of this Forum, we could be able based on the guidlines above. Also, this is not the place to discuss such information, please refer to Talk:RuneScape Clans Wiki. Cheers, 14:39, August 3, 2011 (UTC) *The Triumvirate was not featured twice, at that time the featured clan was changed in mid-month. The main concern I have is with the pictures, 20+ is excessive. We should also, if we are going to go ahead with this, bring the "necessary word count" down a little as even a smaller page should have the ability to be featured if it presents good information. Some clans also use multiple pages to give information (which is something I am going to bring up shortly in another topic). 05:22, August 4, 2011 (UTC) **It's not suppost to be easy to go back multiple times. And the multiple pages issue was addressed 05:34, August 4, 2011 (UTC) **Also think about how little 1000 words actually is! Your paragraph probably has 200+. 05:35, August 4, 2011 (UTC) *Ah, my mistake for missing the sub-pages part. I will look into this further though just to see how it would all play out in the end. 05:37, August 4, 2011 (UTC) *I think you will find that 99% of the featured clans here fit the requirements. 05:40, August 4, 2011 (UTC) *I've added pics to the requirement of the 2nd time, as I think that this is a pretty easy prerequisite to achieve for a clan page. Otherwise, I believe that the current requirements are good. 07:00, August 4, 2011 (UTC) * Even if there is this minor technicality regarding The Triumvirate's feature, they were still on the front page for one month but their article shows they were on for two months. This clearly implies they were featured for at least two months. Either way, to avoid mishap, the featured picturebox or whatever it's called must choose between one or the other month... Pick one and we can move on from this unfair advantage. As with the subject, I think that if one clan is the only clan suitable for being featured but they have already been featured within the year, they should still be featured for that month. However if another clan which is as suitable or more suitable for featuring, the clan which has already had a feature stand aside and let the one with no past featuring to be featured. Thank you. Azorrez 08:11, August 4, 2011 (UTC) * Just ignore it... It's not worth your trouble TRUST ME! As for the year acception I don't think it should be done because there would be mass debates... Could lead to alot of anger and problems. Mainly because suitible has a much thiner defentition. Also if your going for the second time your clan BETTER be around for atleast a year... We don't need clans getting 2 and then dieing right after that. This is for those real Wiki Legends the ones who have been threw months of troubles, gain, loss. The second comeback isn't for the avg joe smoe clan. + if this wiki gets to the point where no-body else is suitable I think RuneScape has closed anyways. Thanks, 08:22, August 4, 2011 (UTC) 5000+ words is nothing, but 1 word can be more valuable than 1000 words, it shouldn't be by words, but by how much information is in the actual page, otherwise people will just take one sentence, make it as long as possible and then leave it like that, thus gaining an advantage, plus, who's gonna be counting so many words? Certainly not me!!! Ascalephus 08:34, August 4, 2011 (UTC) *A computer, and the way that this mass sentance thing is prevented is they still need a nomination. 08:45, August 4, 2011 (UTC) The main problem I see with this is that we'd just start to go in a cycle and not feature anything new. 16:48, August 4, 2011 (UTC) *It's plausible. But HIGHLY unlikely. Just like someone clan having the only good page that was valuble. That's also why there are year limits on there.. You are more likely to have a tougher time trying to get back. 17:01, August 4, 2011 (UTC) *Those requirements seem to fit nicely to me as long as the content of a clan's page is still a factor in deciding its suitability for clan of the month. I am definately not an authority on the activity of this wiki but do you think we have enough clans on this wiki to keep handing out clan of the month awards to with good content that also have not recieved an award before? I wonder if it's against the rules to talk about this wiki to other clan leaders in game? Might be a good way to increase activity to this site. 04:41, September 11, 2011 (UTC) Voting * Support-''' I'm still in favor 00:46, January 4, 2012 (UTC) * 'Support-' Given the lack of viable clan articles recently, this almost seems an inevitable neccessity. 02:36, January 4, 2012 (UTC) * 'Support-' Reopened? 16:53, February 12, 2012 (UTC) * '''Support - Seems so... as per above, 06:40, February 13, 2012 (UTC)